Email this article to a friend

Trump is not the dirty water one should throw out to keep safe the healthy baby of U.S. democracy. He is the dirty baby who needs to be thrown out to make us believe that we got rid of the dirt.

Roger Ebert once said that a film is as good as its villain. Does this mean that the forthcoming U.S. elections will be good since the “bad guy” (Donald Trump) is almost an ideal villain? Yes, but in a very problematic sense. For the liberal majority, the 2016 elections represent a clear-cut choice: Trump is ridiculous, excessive and vulgar. He exploits our worst racist and sexist prejudices such that big-name Republicans are abandoning him in droves. If Trump remains the Republican candidate, we will get a truly “feel-good election.” In spite of all our problems and petty squabbles, when there is a real threat to our basic democratic values we come together, just like France did after the terrorist attacks.

But this comfortable democratic consensus should worry the Left. We should take a step back and turn the gaze on ourselves. What is the exact makeup of this all-embracing democratic unity? Everybody is there, from Wall Street bankers to Bernie Sanders supporters and veterans of the Occupy movement, from big business to trade unions, from army veterans to LGBT+ activists, from the ecologists horrified by Trump’s denial of global warming and the feminists delighted by the prospect of the first woman president to the “decent” Republican establishment figures terrified by Trump’s inconsistencies and irresponsible “demagogic” proposals. These very inconsistencies make his position unique.

Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, observed in a personal e-mail to me:

After Orlando, he came out all warm and fuzzy about LGBT victims/people—in a manner that no other Republican would have dared. Also, it is common knowledge that he is not a “faithful” Christian and that he only says that he is for show—and by ‘common knowledge’ I mean that this is known by the … Christian sects that make up the U.S. fundamentalist front. Lastly, his position on abortion has for decades been a liberal one and it is, again, common knowledge, that he does not favour a repeal of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. In short, Trump has managed to change the cultural politics of the Republican Party for the first time since [Richard] Nixon. By adopting a crass, misogynist, racist language he has managed to release the Republican Party from its traditional reliance on the Fundamentalist, the homophobic and the anti-abortion ideological straitjacket. It is a remarkable contradiction that only a Hegelian can grasp!

His reference to Hegel is justified. Trump’s vulgar racist and misogynist style is what enabled him to undermine the Republican conservative-fundamentalist dogma. Trump is not simply the candidate of conservative fundamentalists. (He is perhaps an even greater threat to them than to “rational” moderate Republicans.) The paradox is, thus, that within the ideological space of the Republican Party, Trump was only able to undermine its fundamentalist core through racist and sexist populist vulgarities. This complexity, of course, disappears in the standard left-liberal demonization of Trump. Why? To see this, we should again turn our gaze towards the Hillary Clinton consensus.

The popular rage that gave birth to Trump also gave birth to Sanders. Both express widespread social and political discontent, but they do it in opposite ways—one engaging in rightist populism and the other opting for the leftist call for justice. And here’s the trick: The leftist call for justice tends to be combined with struggles for women’s and gay rights, for multiculturalism and against racism. The strategic aim of the Clinton consensus is clearly to dissociate all these struggles from the leftist call for justice, which is why the living symbol of this consensus is Tim Cook. Cook, the CEO of Apple, proudly signed a pro-LGBT letter to North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and can now easily forget about hundreds of thousands of Foxconn workers in China assembling Apple products in slave conditions. He made his big gesture of solidarity with the underprivileged by demanding the abolition of gender-segregated bathrooms.

If Cook is one living symbol of this consensus, Madeleine Albright, the first woman to be U.S. secretary of state, is another embodiment. On CBS’s 60 Minutes (May 12, 1996), Albright was asked about the Iraq War: “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Albright calmly replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

Let’s ignore most of the questions this reply raises (including the interesting shift from “I” to “we:” I think it’s a hard choice but we think the price is worth it) and focus on just one aspect: Can we imagine all the hell that would break out if the same answer were said by somebody like Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping or the Iranian president? Would they not be denounced immediately in all our headlines as cold and ruthless monsters? Campaigning for Clinton, Albright said: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” (Meaning: women who vote for Sanders instead of Clinton.) Maybe we should amend this statement. There is a special place in hell for women—and men—who think half a million dead children is an affordable price for a military intervention that ruins a country, while wholeheartedly supporting women’s and gay rights at home.

Trump is not the dirty water one should throw out to keep safe the healthy baby of U.S. democracy. He is the dirty baby who needs to be thrown out to make us believe that we got rid of the dirt, i.e., in order to make us forget the dirt that remains, the dirt that lurks beneath the Hillary consensus. The message of this consensus to the Left is: You can get everything, we just want to keep the essentials, the unencumbered functioning of the global capital. With this frame, President Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can!” acquires a new meaning: Yes, we can concede to all your cultural demands, without endangering the global market economy—so there is no need for radical economic measures. Or, as University of Vermont professor Todd McGowan put it (in a private communication to me): “The consensus of ‘right-thinking people’ opposed to Trump is frightening. It is as if his excess licenses the real global capitalist consensus to emerge and to congratulate themselves on their openness.”

This is why WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is right in his crusade against Clinton, and the liberals who criticize him for attacking her, the only person who can save us from Trump, are wrong: The thing to attack and undermine now is precisely this democratic consensus against the villain.

And what about poor Bernie Sanders? Unfortunately, Trump hit the mark when he compared Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton to an Occupy partisan backing Goldman Sachs. Sanders should withdraw and remain silent in dignity so that his absence will weigh heavily over the Clinton celebrations, reminding us what is missing and, in this way, keeping the space open for more radical alternatives in the future.

Support Progressive Journalism

Donations from readers like you make up a full third of our annual income—that's how critical our end-of-year fundraising drives are. If you want to continue to read independent, progressive journalism in 2019 and beyond, we hope you'll consider chipping in whatever you can today.

Slavoj Žižek, a Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst, is a senior researcher at the the Institute for Humanities, Birkbeck College, University of London. He has also been a visiting professor at more than 10 universities around the world. Žižek is the author of many books, including Living in the End Times, First As Tragedy, Then As Farce, The Year of Dreaming Dangerously and Trouble in Paradise.

Zizek is Camille Paglia with a Slovenian accent and whiskers. He is the flavor of the month and a flash in the pan, flashy but not durable.

Posted by Anthony_McCarthy on 2016-11-06 16:31:31

Zizek is a political partisan, however much he dances his way into what he believes is an original position vis-a-vis the rest. This seems to be why he comes right up against a major point but doesn't go all the way: 'progressive' politics in its current form is not only perfectly consistent with global capitalism, it is the ideology of global capitalism. The social justice warrior phenomenon, trans-friendly bathrooms - all of it functions to eradicate 'old' social antagonisms in favor of a newer, freer flow of capital. All of the hatred for racism, sexism, and so on - today's progressive movement amounts to an injunction to 'hate hate', the ultimate cognitive dissonance - is not really rooted in any lofty moral principle but in a set of social conditions moving in the direction of more and more global capitalism, corporate sovereignty, etc.

Posted by heinrich6666 on 2016-09-30 06:59:06

you didnt get the whole dimension of article. Žižek realy thinks Clintons win is far worse prospect for humanity .

Posted by Nasilno Pokršten on 2016-09-05 03:45:55

They have everything to do with free trade. The US is in no place to complain about "labor rights", when in half of the states, including California and New York, you can be fired for refusing to give your money to a campaign fundraising club (union).

What you refer to is "eviscerating" the right of government elites to harass the people involved in these trades.... which is actually REDUCING authoritarian fascism, not increasing it. The opposite of what you claim is true.

"The point is, the corporate state has too much power as it is."

The opposite is true. The ruling elites have way too much power. No "corporate state" exists. If it did, we'd not have the massive over-regulation and greedy over-taxation of job creators.

There are indeed problems with TPP, etc. These are problems of increase regulation, such as in the copyright areas. But anywhere regulations are reduced by these agreements, it is a victory for the people and a reduction in the power and privilege of ruling elites (a net reduction in authoritarianism/fascism).

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-09-04 05:02:37

There has been no US imperialism for decades. All imperialism is wrong.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-09-04 04:46:28

It is not "nonsense" in any way. Every vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. Stein is a spoiler and nothing more.

If you believe that Stein has a serious hope of getting more than 50% of the vote you are deluded.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-09-04 04:46:07

That would be nice if it were true. Today's global "free-trade" agreements have nothing to do with free-trade, and everything to do with investors' rights. Anything else is treated as non-existent, particularly labor rights and environmental standards, both having been eviscerated. This has led to a new kind of authoritarian-fascism: the corporate kind. Are all corporations evil? No. The point is, the corporate state has too much power as it is. Give them more? I don't think so.

Posted by joe-god on 2016-09-03 17:25:18

Nonsense. But you are a faith full sheep for believing it.Hillary cannot win on her merit, not unlike Gore in 2000, so once again the Dem-party machine rolls out the "spoiler" meme and lesser-of-two-evilism prevails. Pathetic.

Posted by joe-god on 2016-09-03 17:19:13

And what will discourage our own imperialism? Or is imperialism ok as long as it is led by the US?

Posted by joe-god on 2016-09-03 17:12:53

Sanders could not remain silent. His wife was threatened. He was bruised up. John Ashe and Seth Rich had just been killed.

Posted by Doc Jeremic on 2016-09-02 11:08:10

As someone concerned with the freedom of individuals (as opposed to the left's main concern: freedom for the rulers), I want unfettered global mobility for investment, goods, services AND migrants/immigrants.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-09-02 07:14:37

I've heard of Jill Stein, a sort of member of the Trump campaign. (Any vote for her helps him)

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-09-02 07:10:49

If only the left would align itself with the working class, ever.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-09-02 07:10:12

Spending on NATO prevents war: it discourages Putin's imperialism.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-09-02 07:09:36

Sorry, Daeder, Putin has demonized himself with his wars of conquest against Chechnya and Ukraine, and his slaughter of a hundred thousand in Syria.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-09-02 07:09:06

Global capitalism is nothing more than the freedom of the people to make their own economic decisions (and prosper from their own work/efforts) without being harassed and robbed for it by government officials.

It SHOULD triumph: it is the erosion of authoritarianism/fascism/control

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-09-02 07:07:53

What is with you "In These Times" people. Has anyone here ever heard of Jill Stein or Ajamu Baraka?

Posted by Rich Smith on 2016-08-30 03:15:54

Tribal authoritarianism, if you mean our two-party system where we have to pick Dem or GOP because any third party is effectively powerless, yes, that's not going away anytime soon.

Posted by Jon Barber on 2016-08-29 02:37:15

The comments demonstrate the typical shallowness and uneducated thinking ubiquitous among americans--amusing that Zizek tries...americans cannot think dialectically or conceptually.

Posted by basarov on 2016-08-29 00:06:19

And understand it's your vote for you to cast in the privacy of your voting booth or home, as the case may be. A choice that exists until the moment you cast that ballot. I have voted LOTE and I have voted 3rd party. 2008 and Obama (I very reluctantly voted for him, swayed by imagining my guilt if he lost and Gitmo remained open) led me to declare I would never vote LOTE again ... but I'm fully aware that even that choice is my own. Early days yet -- I am outraged at the choices -- all of them. The Democratic party again proves it is deaf, dumb and blind. Long past time to give up hoping they wake up or learn anything. Hasta la victoria siempre. I figure if the fate of the world depends on my vote -- we're in deeper trouble than I ever imagined.

Posted by SusanSunflower on 2016-08-28 18:55:32

The economic downturn scenario you describe appears to be a likely one, given the disarray in Europe. The level of chaos may depend to a large degree on whether the Left can offer a plausible plan on the international level and thus a global way forward. If not, more flirtation with tribal authoritarianism is likely.

Posted by woofer on 2016-08-28 14:17:23

Democracy has never been easy, no doubt. I believe that chaos will continue, it's always a sort of chaos. I fully expect we will have another economic downturn in the next presidential term and that will weigh on the winner as the populace will be even more vocal than the last eight years. I suspect that no matter the presidential winner, the 2020 election will have the incumbent challenged by their own party.

Posted by Jon Barber on 2016-08-28 11:15:42

The issue here from Zizek is the threat of the current historical political circumstance to the Left and those opposed to the hegemony of Titan corporate power. Both Trump and Clinton are, not only supportive of Titan corporations, but they fundamentally represent and embody them.Zizek is exactly correct. This strengthens the moderates, in the US these means a consensus between a near majority of Republicans and majority of Democrats. This consensus does not center around Clinton, but on the importance of capital mobility and profits. Trump has rhetorical threat, but in fact supports strengthening US corporations and increasing their profitability.Varoufakis's notion that these are contradictions only a Hegelian can grasp is interesting. The anti-globalist moment will come to little, when it is reduced to mere xenophobia (i.e. anti-migration, which is to ignore capital mobility, but curtail labor mobility).Varoufakis helps us to understand one of the most important contradiction manifesting Trump's popularity in the US, and Brexit and the rise of May in the UK. Namely, international trade should be beneficial, it is not. As Varoufakis shows in his Global Minotaur, this is primarily how financial markets work. Not only do financier benefit from the current global arrangement, preventing labor mobility allows for superexploitation, increasing the revenue stream of financial firms and profitability of Titan international corporations. Brexit does not fix the system, nor will Trump's lower corporate taxes and lower capital gains tax proposals. But, as Zizek argues, Trump (and Brexit) strengthens the moderate position, weakens the (Hegelian) Universal fix, and instead will help to continue the historical Particularity of massive profits for international corporations and continue the financial revenue streams that tend to keep wages low and international labor weak.

Posted by Hans Despain on 2016-08-28 07:00:38

The question for the left is, is it better to align ourselves with the working class, disagreeing with Trump and his supporters but directing our outrage towards the neo-liberal consensus, or should we support the neo-liberal candidate because we are afraid of Trump? I assert that love is more powerful than fear. If we want to win, love is the choice we should make. Love the people, love the planet. Reject Clinton.

Posted by Ann Tattersall on 2016-08-28 06:45:12

More news from the Great Slovenian Conspiracy. First Melania and now Zizek. When will it ever stop?

The problem with Zizek's piece is that assumes a breathtaking level of naivete on the American Left. Most clearly understand that the Hillary love-in ends on November 9th. That's not really an issue. The task will be to keep up the pressure on her from the Left after election day and flesh out a movement that now mostly only exists in the glittering media universe.

Here's another thought: despite the disturbing scene of neo-cons and neo-liberals all rallying together under a single flag, Hillary's ascendancy offers a great opportunity. She is hopelessly unpopular, thus also endlessly vulnerable to pressure from coherent groups of electoral supporters who threaten to jump ship. Plus the Left movement is still too amorphous and confused to be effective in power. We are in a period of transitional development that promises to remain ugly and chaotic for a few more years. Better that this awkward growing phase be presided over by a weak representative of the old order.

The American Left is understandably orgiastic over its sudden and unexpected return to relevance, but should be realistic about how much hard organizational work lies on the immediate agenda. The political opportunity will persist because the underlying problems aren't going away. A little thoughtful caution is in order.

Posted by woofer on 2016-08-27 15:21:01

you neglect the chaos Clinton is sure to unleash in demonizing Putin (no saint but a predictable moderate realist) and in her unfettered 'solidarity' with Israel's and Saudi Arabia's most hawkish reinvigorating tensions with Iran. Then there is China. The 'asia pivot' was her big idea in the first place, and looksie, we're getting the TPP. (The economic consequences of that alone will deliver us a hundred new Trumps.) Look at Libya, there is no question she's reckless. Is Trump really capable of doing most of what he blabbers about? I don't think so. Does the establishment media demonstrate every day that liberals get away with madness - like Albright comment Z. mentioned - Trump never could. At the very least the OBVIOUS option you conveniently ignore is strategic voting: if you live in a state that polls show is clearly decided, vote for that third party, build it for the next go around. It's not about keeping oneself the pure, 'beautiful soul,' (it's liberals who don't want to feel the US is a 'dirty' for having brutish leaders) it's about the dirty work of building from mass discontent a mass movement and ultimately broader concrete political options. The responsible thing to do is recognize that the lesser evil gets more evil all the time!

Posted by daeder on 2016-08-26 21:14:47

Hillary Clinton, pro NATO spending, Donald Trump, opposed to NATO spending. The more spent on NATO the greater likelihood of war, else how could even more be spent on NATO (it never stops).That's were the "it never stops" choice kicks it, do you want the corruption to end or not, three decades of blatant political duopoly corruption, when will it ever stop, if you do not decide to make it stop.So voting Trump breaks that duopoly, voting the Greens doe even more, voting the corrupt Democrats (blatantly corrupt following the exposure of the cross the board corruption of the Democrats, something Trump is free of with regards to the Republicans), does absolutely nothing, just turns you vote to a deposit by a sheep in a paddock, less than nothing.Choose end in now or let it blow right up in your faces, end the corruption with just 4 years of limited chaos (the establishment still controls the congress and senate) or let the corruption drag on for decades more, until your entire society collapse because that is exactly where it is going with another vote for the establishment under the guise of the corrupt democrats.

Posted by rtb61 on 2016-08-24 20:23:55

The analysis of Trump’s appeal as misogynist-racist is only partial. He’s also a reality-show cult of personality with the characteristics of a demagogue, who seems to have no core beliefs other than a commitment to self-aggrandizement, and who consequently seems like a serious threat on any number of scores. What, according to Zizek, should a leftist American voter – or, for that matter, Bernie Sanders – do in November?(1) Vote for and support a misogynist-racist demagogue who, at best, might prove to make minor adjustments to global capitalism while advancing only a few of the regressive policies that he’s promised, or, at worst, could lock up and abuse foreigners, get involved in wars over petty slights, hasten the destruction of the planet, and undermine longstanding democratic processes.(2) Vote for a third party or “remain silent in dignity” such that one’s leftist conscience is preserved and a shadow is cast over the election of Clinton, or Trump is elected with the possibilities of (1).(3) Vote for and support Clinton who, at best, will be pushed by Sanders and Warren toward further progressive achievements or, at worst, will continue with global capitalist policy and a hawkish foreign policy while checking these policies with some infrastructure investment.Zizek seems to support (2) in this piece. The preservation of one’s beautiful moral conscience isn’t something he normally supports. If not supporting Clinton contributes to the election of Trump, would he be happy if the world is plunged into chaos (in the hopes that some kind of Communist-leaning revolution would take place)? That seems iffy, as well as dangerous, for it could be that a much worse demagogue than Trump would rise to power - though, admittedly, this kind of chaos is the stuff revolutionary dreams are made on.Like Sanders, I think (3) is the politically responsible choice, even if it too involves a certain amount of risk and problems and compromise.